since medical certificate is not on record. Moreover, the trial Court has observed that the person whose name the victim had stated where the accused had sexual intercourse with her in their house, does not match with the spot panchanama since the names are different. It is therefore that the trial Court held the offence of rape as alleged is not proved. It is pertinent to mention that there is delay of 3 days in lodging the FIR. The victim deposed that she was unconscious for 3 days on account of the trauma suffered. This explanation does not sound convincing. The victim has stated that her parents were against her friendship with the appellant. In my opinion, in the facts of the present case, the delay in registering the FIR creates a doubt about the version of the prosecutrix. The delay will have to be regarded as fatal to the prosecution. The possibility that her parents instigated the victim to lodge the FIR cannot be ruled out. In the facts of the present case as they did not approve of her friendship and often scolded her, the version of the victim cannot be regarded as free from doubt. I am therefore inclined to hold the charge against the appellant as not proved on the principle of benefit of doubt. The
